Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Type:||Artigo de periódico|
|Title:||Whole, turret and step methods of rapid rescreening: Is there any difference in performance?|
|Abstract:||We Compared the performance of the Whole, Turret and Step techniques of 100% rapid rescreening (RR) in detection of false-negatives in cervical cytology. We tested RR performance with cytologists trained and among those without training. We revised 1,000 consecutive slides from women participating in an ongoing international screening trial. Two teams of experienced cytologists performed the RR techniques: one trained in RR procedures and the other not trained. The sensitivities in the trained group were Whole 46.6%, Turret 47.4% and Step 50.9%; and in the non-trained group were 38.6, 31.6 and 47.4%, respectively. The K coefficient showed a weak agreement between the two groups of cytologists and between the three RR techniques. The RR techniques are more valuable if used by trained cytologists. In the trained group. we did not observe significant differences between the RR techniques used, whereas in the non-trained group, the Step technique had the best sensitivity.|
|Citation:||Diagnostic Cytopathology. Wiley-liss, v. 35, n. 1, n. 57, n. 60, 2007.|
|Appears in Collections:||Unicamp - Artigos e Outros Documentos|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.